DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ban on Stock Trading

This has been making headlines lately, and I hope it’s something that the vast majority could get behind.

I can’t copy and paste the article effectively because I’m on my phone, and on the move (took the day off with some errands). This has to do with the act that Josh Hawley, a Republican, has been spearheading. It bans stock holding and trading for those in elected positions and their families.

He has been getting roasted by a lot on the Right. Trump referred to him as a second-rate senator, despite the fact the bill would exempt Trump and Vance. Rick Scott, who I believe is worth $500M, lambasted the act by saying he doesn’t want to be poor.

I really think the response embodies the corruption and out of touch politicians we have. It’s sickening. Throw Pelosi in that boat as well.

One potential criticism I have is that the bill signifies the elected officials would have to divest their stocks. I get why they would have to because there’s still a conflict of interest if you own millions in a company that falls within your legislative control. However, I think Hawley has signaled he is open to compromise, especially from the President. If it was structly a ban on buying/selling, it would still be a vast improvement.

I just find the whole thing sickening. I don’t write Warren Davidson and the Senators much, because I don’t think they give two sharts about what I think, honestly, but I think this is one where I’ll be vocal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...h-hawley-stock-trading-bill/85454893007/

This should actually be a non partisan issue. But it's 2025. Compromise and non partisanship no longer seem to exist when it comes to anything. This would go a long way in helping restore at least a certain amount of faith that not every move a politician makes is solely to line their own pockets.

I don’t think there should be a no stock ownership rule but I think there should be a no individual stock ownership bill.

I think that owning mutual funds or etf’s should be okay

I think this is one of the few topics where both sides of the voter base are going to agree (in favor of additional accountability) and both sides of Congress will agree (to oppose).


I think it all kinda speaks for itself. The only thing I'll add (and this is purely my opinion and not really based on hard evidence) is that someone like Trump (a non-establishment politician) is more likely to help push this through than anyone with deep ties to either party.

I would have no problem with members of the House or Senate owning stocks they had purchased before they were elected. With the caveat' they weren't allowed to vote on any bill or measure that pertained in any way to the industry they owned stock in.

The latest I can think of didn't involved crypto.


They named the week of July 14-18 "Crypto week".

Less than a month after trump created his own meme coin.

I think I agree to a point. If you own like an oil ETF or pharmaceutical Index, that could get dicey.

I think Hawley was banking on that last point, but then Trump came out and torched him, calling him second-rate. It was a weird about-face because Trump initially showed support when the idea was brought up notionally. I’m guessing someone got in his ear.

I’d be on board with that, especially because I have to live with that setup. I cannot deal with any defense contractors in which I have stock ownership. Come to think of it, I should go out and buy Boeing’s stock so I never have to deal with them again…

lol

An individual works for years and years to build a portfolio for among other things to develop a strong retirement. At some point they decide to run for higher office and now they have to divest. I'm not so sure I'd run for office under that circumstance.

Then I see a guy like Jimmy Carter and realize he sold the family peanut farm to become president.

There has got to be a way to put all their assets in the hands of a professional money manager while they are in office.

I understand the need for this.

A trust so to speak. I think there are ways to get this done. It’s just clear that a lot of them will never want that.

I guess my ignorance is showing.
When I said ETF I was thinking major index ETF's like nasdaq's QQQ and the S&P 500's SPDR
I didn't realize there were oil/pharma etc ETF's

So yes, I agree with your co'larification of my point

Bro you can find my picture in the dictionary next to “Ignorant” most of the time. But yeah I wholeheartedly agree. S&P500 and whatnot is totally fine with me.

I tend to agree. People shouldn't have to divest. That is moronic. I would say if people hold a stock, they can keep the stock. I would put a pause on purchasing individual stocks while in office. They should be able to sell individual stocks. If a stock starts to tank, they shouldn't be forced to ride it to the bottom. There is no fairness in that.

Members of congress should be able to invest in Mutual Funds and the like. Those funds are managed by fund managers. They aren't self directed.

I am sure many of you have money in various funds. You know those funds put money in to hundreds of different stocks or investment vehicles across many different segments. If you invest in several different funds with different fund goals, you might be invested in 1000 different companys, REITS, ETFs, bonds and just plain old cash accounts.

The SEC regulates Wall Street. Maybe they should have a couple of marshalls doing nothing but watching over congressional trading and start flagging what looks like suspicious insider trades.